None of 15 Witnesses Examined: Supreme Court Grants NDPS Bail in Intermediate-Quantity Case, Expedites Trial

Published: 3 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

The Supreme Court granted bail to Rohit, arrested on 12.04.2026 in a case under Sections 8/22 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Shivdaspura, Jaipur, and set aside the Rajasthan High Court's order rejecting his second bail application (paras 3, 5, 10). It noted that the recovery is of intermediate quantity, charges are framed, the co-accused are on bail, none of the 15 prosecution witnesses has been examined and no other case is pending against him (para 4).

None of 15 Witnesses Examined: Supreme Court Grants NDPS Bail in Intermediate-Quantity Case, Expedites Trial

Judgment Intelligence

Bail Granted

Rohit v. State of Rajasthan

Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16882 of 2026)

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 3 November 2026
Bench: Justices Augustine George Masih and Sunita Agarwal
Relevant Acts & Sections: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8 and 22

Final Outcome

Appeal allowed and bail granted: the High Court's order of 06.07.2026 was set aside and the appellant was granted bail on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the Trial Court, with the trial expedited; pending applications were disposed of (paras 5, 7, 10-12).

Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 3 November 2026 · Court's copy

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

Bail was granted after the Court noted an intermediate-quantity recovery, charges framed, co-accused on bail, none of 15 prosecution witnesses examined and no other case pending (paras 4-5).
The bail terms are left to the Trial Court, before which the appellant is to be produced forthwith (paras 5-6).
The State/prosecution undertook to produce all its witnesses on the dates fixed, and the trial is expedited (para 7).
If the trial fails to progress because the appellant does not cooperate, the prosecution may seek cancellation of bail; any passport is to be surrendered (paras 8-9).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The appellant was arrested on 12.04.2026 in connection with FIR No. 374/2026 of the same date, registered at Police Station Shivdaspura, District Jaipur City (South), for the offence punishable under Sections 8/22 of the NDPS Act (para 3). By its order of 06.07.2026 in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 9510/2026, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur rejected his bail application (para 2). He challenged that order before the Supreme Court, which granted leave on 03.11.2026 (para 1). The order does not describe the contraband or the circumstances of the recovery.

Court's Findings

Having heard both sides, the Court set out five facts (para 4): the recovery effected from the appellant is of intermediate quantity; charges have been framed; the co-accused have been granted bail; no witness has been examined so far out of fifteen prosecution witnesses; and no other case is registered or pending against him. ‘Keeping in view the above facts’, it held that he had made out a case for interference with the High Court's order and granted bail on terms to be fixed by the Trial Court (para 5). It gave no other reason and said nothing on the merits of the prosecution case. The appellant is to be produced before the Trial Court forthwith (para 6). The State/prosecution undertook to produce all the witnesses on the dates the Trial Court fixes, and the trial is expedited (para 7). The appellant must fully cooperate, must not misuse the liberty or seek any unnecessary adjournment; if the trial fails to progress because he does not cooperate, the prosecution may apply for cancellation of bail (para 8). Any passport he holds is to be surrendered until the trial concludes or until directed otherwise (para 9).

Legal Principle

The order lays down no new rule. It shows the Court weighing the stage of the trial with the facts of the case: an intermediate-quantity recovery, charges framed, co-accused on bail, no witness examined and no other case led to bail, while the trial was expedited on the prosecution's undertaking to produce its witnesses (paras 4-5, 7).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

In an intermediate-quantity NDPS case, this order lists the facts the Court set out before granting bail: the quantity, the framing of charges, bail to the co-accused, how many prosecution witnesses have been examined, and whether any other case is registered or pending (para 4). A bail plea should place each of these on record. The order also pairs release with trial discipline: the prosecution's undertaking to produce witnesses, an expedited trial, and a cancellation route if the accused does not cooperate (paras 7-8). Compare Gurpreet Singh @ Lucky, a Supreme Court order of 30.10.2026 on parity and criminal antecedents in bail, and Ved Prakash Tiwari, a Supreme Court order of 16.10.2026 on criminal antecedents in bail.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.